"I am using SketchUp 2023, and my file size is only 50MB, but it’s not working properly while I’m working on it. I have also tried it on another system with the same workstation, but the problem was not resolved.
Here are my system specifications:
Processor: Intel Xeon CPU E3-1225 v6 @ 3.30GHz
RAM: 8GB
Graphics Card: NVIDIA Quadro P600
Storage: OS and software are installed on an SSD.
Please suggest what I should do to ensure smooth operation. Should I consider upgrading my hardware or is there another solution you recommend?"
What do you see when you open the Model Info>Statistics page and enable the “Show nested components” box? How many millions do the Edge and Face counts run to?
Your hardware starts to be somewhat dated but a bloated model is slow whatever the computer specs.
If I went for a new computer for SketchUp today I would look for
To piggyback Anssi’s question, there are two ways for a SU file to be heavy.
Mb. a 50mb file could however be a single cube with a 50mb photo as a texture. I saw one last week where someone imported ALL of the plans as hi-size jpgs on the ground, once removed, the file lost 30+ mb
geometry. I’ve got a 1,5M lines / 1M faces file, it’s 3,5mb, yet when activating all the tags, my mac mini starts smoking.
a heavy file might take time to open and space on your disk, but a complex file, now that one will be difficult to manipulate.
Unfortunately Xeons and Quadros are totally useless for SU. While maybe great for high end CAD programs you will see NO significant performance improvement when using them in SU. That Xeon is from 2017 so it is pretty old also a cheap GTX graphics card would blow that Quadro out of the water. You can run the SU benchmark and tell us your score. What other programs do you use? I’d get a new PC if I were you but I don’t know your budget and Anssi has posted a good starting point. Let’s say you have $1,500 to spend…
Contrary to popular belief, Xeon processors aren’t good for 3D programs, most, if not all, 3D programs use only one core. Right now the processor with the highest score is the i9 13900K, but the i5 13600K is a better option in my opinion, it has almost the same single core performance and it can handle even an RTX 4090 without any issues, in case you do rendering, the i9 has a lot of cores that aren’t going to be used at any time, and it’s more than double the price.
Right now the minimum requirements of memory for 3D softwares is 16gb, but 32 is much better, you can run out of it pretty fast with 16 gb, the memory speed is also important, with DDR4, 3600 mhz and DDR5 5600mhz are good.
The gpu is also important if you want to have better performance and less lag when you work with big models and also for rendering, AMD doesn’t have support for all the engines and the performance is worst than an equivalent Nvidia gpu. If you do a lot of rendering you should get at least an RTX 4070, otherwise a 4060, 4060ti are good options and cheaper. As I mentioned the 4090 is the most powerful right now but it’s very expensive and probably overkill for your needs.
I mean real life minimum requirements for professional work, not minimum requirements to run the software, maybe 4gb are ok for hobbyist who model just small things, but modeling a complete project of architecture, even if it’s a small one, will require a lot more ram, I think windows 11 uses almost 3gb on idle.
It’s a good configuration but depends on the price, you can save some money if you build a pc by yourself or even hiring someone to do it for you, prebuilt PCs are usually overpriced. Also if you don’t want to deal with drivers and want a small silent and powerful machine, the Mac mini with the M2 pro chip is a good option, the single core performance of the M2 is one of the best and the energy consumption is unbelievable low.
Xeons are optimized for servers so they have no benefits for workstation users and their cores tend to be rather slow. The fastest Xeon is way down on the benchmark list.
Quadros are not useless, but they just won’t offer any benefit to current SketchUp/CAD/BIM users compared to equivalent, much cheaper “consumer” graphics cards. The P600 the OP mentions was an older “entry-level” card, meant mostly for 2D CAD.
It’s basically OK, but if you can afford it, add more RAM.
I have not gone through the actual current specs, but at least in previous generations the hardware in Quadros and GFs was said to be practically identical. So it is a matter of what you are comparing, in terms of CUDA/RTX cores etc. At similar prices, certainly GFs run in circles around the Quadros.
My previous computer had a midrange Quadro card. At the time, the drivers were still different so I think I missed a couple of bad bugs that had managed to creep into GF driver releases, but more recently, my GF RTX card has caused me zero problems.
I had one saved from 2016 that I shared on an AutoCAD forum in a similar discussion. The benchmark used was the Cadalyst 3D score for AutoCAD. A GTX 1080 Ti beat a Quadro P5000, P4000, P2000 and almost scored the same as a P6000 in AutoCAD. At the time I added on current street prices for the cards when a $1K card scores almost the same as a $4K card well the choice is pretty easy to make. I am sure that there are some high end CAD applications where a Quadro does make a difference but SU isn’t it.
If one is doing CAD, Revit and SU then just get the best GF RTX you can afford and save the difference for more ram
